Reformed Theology Roundtable: Does the Author Analogy Succeed?

Last week, while multitudes of theology nerds were still digesting the Molinism vs Calvinism debate between William Lane Craig and James White, our friends at the Complete Sinner’s Guide brought us a fascinating deep-dive on the intricacies of Reformed Theology. Co-hosts Tyler Fowler and Joshua Davidson were joined by frequent guest Joshua Sherman and, to represent the Reformed position, Chris Date, Andrew Elliott, and Jeremiah Short. The purpose of this panel discussion was to clearly articulate the relationship between the Reformed/Calvinistic concepts of God’s eternal decree and man’s free will, as described by the philosophy of compatibilism. While all three affirm God’s meticulous determination of all history, each reject hard determinism and the idea that God is the author of sin. This was a central sticking point in the discussion, especially as Date proposed that their position is best compared to the relationship between an author and his story. I would like to do my best here to represent this view, and to show how I believe this analogy fails to remove God as the author of sin in the Calvinistic system. (Much of the discussion was led by Date, with Davidson doing most of the pressing for clarity. For this reason, I will primarily be addressing their interactions.)

Compatibilism Defined

The heart of the discussion begins about 15 minutes in as Date gives a succinct definition: “Compatibilism… is just the idea that… determinism is compatible with moral responsibility. The whole point of compatibilism is to affirm determinism.” Determinism, from a theological standpoint, is the idea that everything which happens, to the most minute detail, is by God’s determined will. This, of course, raises the question of how we factor in the idea that humans have free will. Date explains that “they have a sufficient degree of freedom as to be held morally responsible.” Elliott adds, “God determines all things, but He does it in such a manner that you will freely choose to do so.” 

This determination is made effective by God’s decree prior to creation. Biblical evidence is cited from Genesis 50:20 and Acts 4:27-28, which show God’s will being accomplished through the sinful acts of men. However, Molinists equally appeal to such passages for support. Like Calvinists, they affirm God’s decree of all things prior to creation. The key difference is that in Molinism, God’s decree is based in part on His foreknowledge of what human beings would do (allowing for libertarian free will), as opposed to His foreknowledge simply being what He has determined them to do in compatibilistic Calvinism.

The Author Analogy

From here, Date goes on to give his author analogy, as he explains how God’s decree plays out in space-time events in a comparable way to those of J.R.R. Tolkien’s “The Lord of the Rings.” The world imagined by Tolkien is actualized within those stories, but the characters experience them in their own sense of time with their own sense of agency. Date gives a good summary of his mission in this discussion when he says: “I want to encourage my fellow Calvinists to think of… the relationship between God and time as something analogous to the relationship between an author and a story, because I think that non-Calvinists are right to object if there is a meaningful sense in which God is causing people to sin.” He hopes to solidify the discussion around this analogy, as opposed to robot or puppet analogies (which he rejects), adding, “Let the battle happen on that ground.”

What then is the advantage of the author analogy? For Date, the difference is what he calls a “transcendence gap.” In other words, because God exists in the eternal realm and we live out His decree in space-time by our own thoughts and actions, God is not responsible for what we do. This transcendence gap is, in his words, “critical for maintaining moral culpability for humans.” The blame for sin then resides in humans, even though God has determined prior to our existence that we would sin. Since Date has admitted that non-Calvinists have good reason to object to the idea that God causes people to sin, the point of debate becomes clear. Does the eternal decree “cause” people to sin? If it does, compatibilism fails to defend the holiness of God. All three Reformed participants agree that the decree does not equate to “cause.” And this is where I am left genuinely perplexed.

Competing Views of Freedom

Representing the non-Calvinists in the audience, Davidson challenges this notion: “I think the disconnect is that if there is a first cause, and it is not the individual agent, that the freedom is then compromised.” To this Short responds, “You are presupposing incompatibilism.” This phrase will be repeated multiple times throughout the remainder of the discussion, as the Reformed participants take the position that the libertarian concept of free will makes false assumptions about freedom that the compatibilist successfully avoids. 

Date explains: “I come to the issue of freedom, and I try to make no assumptions about what that requires. And one of the assumptions I refuse to make is that in order for an agent’s choice to be free, their choice has to ultimately, full stop, originate with them.” At one point, Davidson seeks clarification: “It just needs to SEEM as though there could be the alternate possibility.” Date gladly affirms: “That’s great! I like that!” 

This exchange reveals that in compatibilism, the choice between competing options is an illusion. You may think you are making the choice, but it has been chosen for you. Yet you take responsibility for that choice because you are the one who performs it, believing you are making it. Date summarizes: “Their will is influenced by all sorts of factors including their genetics, their prenatal development, their upbringing, their life experiences, their addictions, everything. Their friends, their relationships, all of that influence the will, including their own desire, and the result of all that influence is that the will makes a choice. But… that choice has been pre-determined by God.” Wouldn’t all those factors be included in the eternal decree? 

Force vs. Decree?

Date further explains: “Ultimately, they make a choice, and God has decreed that, but nothing is forcing their hand.” He goes on: “…there is no programming that is firing, in the world God has created, that brings about the action that God has decreed. So that’s what I mean by free. There is literally nothing forcing the agent’s hand to do what they nevertheless do, exactly as God has decreed.” 

In response, Davidson makes what I believe to be a fairly obvious point: technically, they are “forced.” Date asks what is forcing them, to which he responds, “the authorship.” And I have to ask, if the eternal decree of God is not powerful to “force” what happens in space-time, what is it good for? It seems to be simultaneously all-powerful and powerless. Anyone noticing a problem here? 

Date resorts to his escape hatch of the transcendence gap by insisting that the “authorship” doesn’t exist in time, therefore it doesn’t force individuals to act out the parts that have been written for them from eternity past. All that matters is that we “seem” to have a choice. That illusion of choice is sufficient to make each of us morally responsible, and it lets the God of Reformed theology off the hook. How convenient!

How the Analogy Fails

What the author analogy ultimately presents is an illusion of reality. Just as the choices of characters in a novel do not originate in themselves, but in the mind of the author, so too do the sinful thoughts, desires, and actions of human beings originate in the mind and will of God, according to compatibilism. Fictional characters are incapable of producing anything that doesn’t reside in their source. Just the same, human beings could not produce sinful thoughts and behaviors that did not originate in God. Fictional characters possess no actual agency, but we willfully adopt the illusion for the sake of the enjoyment of the story. In compatibilism, human agency is likewise a useful illusion. We are left to deceive ourselves into believing that we are actually making choices, and that we were able to have chosen differently than we did. Since all things that happen in space-time are included in God's decree, this illusion of free choice is also decreed from eternity past. 

The transcendence gap, as described by Date, only succeeds in separating reality from fiction. It effectively does the opposite of what he hopes by diminishing the sinfulness of sin. An author can write stories full of violence, death, and all sorts of sinful behaviors, yet himself retain innocence of those sins because those fictional characters are not actually sinning in real life. Their world carries no actual consequences for real individuals. They do not actually suffer pain or misery or death, so we do not hold the author accountable for any crimes or acts of cruelty committed within the story. Yet we know that what we experience is real. All the evils of this world are real. Our suffering is real, and we cannot be convinced otherwise. Likewise, our sin is real, and because it is, our guilt is real and deserving of judgment. And because all the evils of this world are real, the grace of God is every bit as real, possessing incomparable value.

Conclusion

If God has "authored" all history, He has inevitably written every aspect, including all the suffering and death that results from the sin that is within that story. To argue that God has meticulously authored every detail of the story and deny that He has authored sin is an irreconcilable contradiction. This analogy leaves us to conclude that either the “reality” we experience is pure fiction, or God is the author of real sin. The former does damage to God's power to create real beings made in His image. The latter is fatal to His holiness (Jeremiah 32:35). Neither option is acceptable, therefore we should reject the author analogy. If it is the best representation of compatibilism, we should reject compatibilism. If compatibilism is the best Reformed theology has to offer, we should reject Reformed theology. As Date said, “I think that non-Calvinists are right to object if there is a meaningful sense in which God is causing people to sin.” The author analogy cannot remove that meaningful sense, therefore we are right to maintain our objections.

Making Sense of Christianity 5: Atonement Through Incarnation

As I have demonstrated through this series, our world is in a seemingly hopeless condition resulting from each individual’s choices to sin. This is made all the more difficult through the profound rebellious influence of the demonic realm. Sinful choices have resulted in much pain and suffering, and ultimately in death. We experience the effects of sin within our own bodies, and as we obey the desires of the flesh, our souls are drawn away from the desire to live our lives in accordance with God’s purposes for us. Once God’s perfect creation was corrupted in part, the whole of creation was inevitably corrupted. Why would an all-knowing, all-powerful, all benevolent God design a world that could so easily go wrong? The answer lies in “Felix Culpa.”

The Fortunate Fall

Felix Culpa, which translates to “the fortunate fall,” explains that a fallen world which experiences the incarnation of Jesus Christ and His atonement for sin is better than a world that never experiences the Fall and lacks those goods. His incarnation and atonement are far greater than the sum of all the evils of this world, and they are so good because of the existence of those evils (this video explains). I hope to show in the remainder of this series how this difficult claim is true. 

Definitions

First, let’s define our terms. “Incarnation” is the taking on of flesh. In Christianity, this is the belief that Jesus Christ is the eternal Word of God who became a human being, conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary. As it says in John 1:14, “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.” 

‭‭“Atonement” is the reconciliation of sinful human beings to God, which is accomplished through Jesus Christ. While the meaning of the incarnation is not particularly controversial among orthodox Christians, a proper understanding of the atonement has been much debated throughout the history of the Christian Church. Most popular in America has been “penal substitutionary theory,” though historically Christians have also held to views under such names as “Christus Victor,” “ransom theory,” “satisfaction theory,” and “moral influence theory.” 

While each of these models fits the basic definition of the atonement, there are substantial differences in the mechanics of just how Jesus has reconciled believers to God. Penal substitution and satisfaction theories emphasize how Jesus’ death on the cross satisfied God’s wrath towards guilty sinners, while Christus Victor and ransom theory put the emphasis on God’s rescuing of sinners from enslavement to the Devil. Therefore we see a tension between God’s anger and the compassion of Christ. I would like to share how I have come to make sense of the atonement, and how I tie these two aspects together by also connecting the incarnation to the atonement. 

A Nagging Question

As someone who has grown up in the American Church, there’s been a question that has not been answered to my satisfaction: If Jesus “took away” the punishment for my sin on the cross, why would my punishment for rejecting Christ not also be to die by crucifixion? It seems that the punishment He endured on the cross was far greater than what most (if not all) of us will suffer in this life, but what followed was not the same as what we would suffer in the next. Most Christians believe that those who die apart from His atonement will live eternally in a conscious state of separation from God. A minority believe that both body and soul will be annihilated in hell. Jesus did not suffer an eternity in hell, nor was He annihilated. As Jesus says in Matthew 25:46, “And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” So if the cross is seen as the punishment due for our sins, then it is not the punishment described in this verse. (I will offer an explanation for eternal punishment in part 7.) While the way in which He died is significant, what is most important is that He died. 

A Genuine Incarnation

As Romans 6:23 tells us, “the wages of sin is death.” Going back to Adam: “And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, ‘Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.’” (Genesis‬ ‭2:16-17‬) The consequence of sin is death, and though Jesus did not sin, He took on its consequences in the flesh. Through the incarnation, Jesus lived a genuine human experience, and that experience needed to include death and suffering. It is truly mind-blowing to think that the eternally existent Creator God of the universe would Himself experience death as a consequence of sin. And to think that He did this by His own free choice!

Much of my view of the atonement is shaped by my study into the book of Hebrews. The author makes a number of points that are relevant here. “But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone.” (Hebrews‬ ‭2:9‬) The emphasis on Jesus “tasting” death for everyone is illuminating. 

“Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.” ‭‭(2:14-15‬) Here we see the connection to the incarnation, with the emphasis on Jesus sharing in our flesh and blood. 

This is an act of God’s compassion and love for us, that He condescended to our level of experience so that we could be freed from the power of death and the Devil would be defeated. Score a point for Christus Victor. But there’s something more fundamental than victory over Satan.

A Sympathetic High Priest

Continuing in Hebrews: “For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham. Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.” (2:16-17‬) Here, the author makes the connection specifically to his Jewish audience. Jesus was in every way a fellow Jew, and therefore qualified to minister as High Priest and make atonement for their sins. 

“For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted.” ‭‭(2:18‬) And further on, “For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.” (4:15‬) The heavy emphasis on Christ being able to sympathize with us in our experiences, whether that be in temptation, or suffering, or even death, is significant, and opens a door to a fuller understanding of the atonement: one that sees its primary purpose in the healing of the human condition.

Healing a Sin-Sick World

Consider the analogy Jesus prophetically uses to describe His death on the cross: “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.” (‭‭John‬ ‭3:14-15‬) Jesus likens Himself to a symbol of healing from Israel’s past: “Then the Lord said to Moses, “Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and it shall be that everyone who is bitten, when he looks at it, shall live.” So Moses made a bronze serpent, and put it on a pole; and so it was, if a serpent had bitten anyone, when he looked at the bronze serpent, he lived.” (Numbers 21:8-9) Therefore we have a healing aspect of the atonement that is sufficient for all who will look upon it to be healed. 

This also brings continuity to Jesus’ healing ministry. As He healed those who were sick, disabled, or even had passed away, He gave a glimpse of what the future holds for those who are in His Kingdom. Revelation 21:4-5a says: “‘And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away.’ Then He who sat on the throne said, ‘Behold, I make all things new.’”

Someday the restoration will be complete. This restoration will not only be for us, but for the created world, which also suffers from disorder as a consequence of sin. As Paul writes to the Romans: “For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body.” (Romans‬ ‭8:18-23‬) The end result of the atonement is a world and a people restored to their good teleological purposes, free from the effects of sin and the influence of the Devil, flourishing in the perfect will of God.

Looking Ahead

This is a beautiful picture, but how is it better than a world that never fell into sin in the first place? Couldn’t God have spared us (and Himself) a lot of trouble? We haven’t really proved Felix Culpa to be true, have we? In order to do so, there must be something more to the atonement that brings about a better end than where we started. The answer is multi-faceted, but can be summed up in the concept of self-sacrificial love. I will discuss this next time as we look at “Atonement Through Sacrifice.” 

1. The Creator God
2. Personhood & the Image of God

3. Sin & Death

4. The Spiritual War

5. Atonement Through Incarnation

6. Atonement Through Sacrifice

7. Resurrection

8. Grace Through Faith 

Making Sense of Christianity 3: Sin and Death

If there’s one thing everyone can agree upon it is this: the world is not as it should be. While we all see significant problems, we offer vastly different and contradicting solutions to them. Much of our disagreement arises from where we believe the problems originate. The secular world often assigns the blame to external circumstances and accidents of nature, believing that human beings are victims of chance. Those who inflict harm on others do so because others inflicted harm on them, with the blame continually pushed back in an endless chain of prior causes. Christianity offers a different view. Evil exists in our world because we all sin. While each individual cannot change their circumstances, we always have a choice to do what is right or wrong. Therefore, the world is tainted by the effects of sin, but each of us are personally guilty of contributing to the mess. 

What is Sinful about Sin?

While the Christian belief in personal responsibility and the universal sinfulness of the human race is well known, what is not clearly understood by most, including those within the Church, is what makes a sin a sin. Many understand it in terms of “divine command theory.” That is to say, a sin is a sin because God declares it so. The Bible states that such and such behavior, thought, or belief is wrong, therefore it is sin. While God’s commands make it clear to us that such things are sinful, they don’t encompass all of what is sin, especially since Scripture is silent in many areas. While we can apply principles from certain commands to other situations, we cannot always arrive at a clear answer. Perhaps there is a better way to understand sin. I believe that better way is teleology.

Teleology

Teleology is the idea that there is purpose and design in nature. Many of us may be familiar with teleological arguments for a Creator God that show how “fine-tuned” the universe and our planet are to make life possible. We might consider the distance from the earth to the sun, or the strength of the gravitational force, or how we happen to have the water and food we need to survive, as well as the abiltity to reproduce to keep life going. These are a minuscule sampling of the various factors of what is required for us to live and sustain life, and they collectively make a powerful case for the conclusion that this world is not an accident, but the result of an intentional Creator. However, we often fail to make the connection to how we ought to live. If God has fine-tuned the universe for our existence, couldn’t He also have created us with functional purposes in mind? For many, the discussion of teleology stops short at what has been done for us. Doesn’t it also imply what WE should be doing?

Recall what I said in the previous post: “If He (God) IS love, then love is in accordance with what is good, which is in accordance with what is rational, which is in accordance with the will of God. And if this is so, the perfect expression of our love is to be in submission to His will for our lives, and to encourage others to do the same.” From this we can logically infer that sin is that which is not in submission to God’s will, which is ultimately irrational, not good, and unloving. From a teleological perspective, sin is the willful rejection of God’s design for human beings to flourish. Having this framework for our definition of sin helps to bring clarity to the issue. On divine command theory, God’s rules may be arbitrary. Theoretically, He can command us to do things that we know intuitively to be morally wrong. From a teleological perspective, He only commands us to do what is good for us collectively and helps us to function properly in this world. This proper function is based on God’s knowledge of His creation and how it is designed to work. Instead of merely “because God says so,” we want to obey Him because it is good for us to do so. Living according to the purpose for which we are created is the way that we flourish. When we disobey, there are negative consequences for us and for others. 

Another advantage teleology provides is that it helps make sense of sin as a universal problem for humankind. For much of humanity prior to Christ, and continuing today, access to Scripture and the stated commands of God is either forbidden or has yet to be obtained. There are corners of the world where the Gospel has yet to be preached and the Scriptures have yet to be delivered to the people. Are those who have not heard accountable for commands they haven’t received? 

Breaking From the Design

Romans 1:18-32 details the universal sin problem, and shows how sin is not rooted in arbitrary commands, but is associated with rebellion against God’s design for human nature. Those who have not heard the specific commands we find in Scripture still have knowledge of God as revealed in the natural world. They have enough of this knowledge that verses 19-20 says, “what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.” What follows is an explanation of how detachment from God-given design and purpose leads to our affections being for created things, and our behaviors deviating from the form and function for which we exist. Verses 26-27 illustrate the degree to which teleology is rejected. “For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.” The example Paul uses here may trigger our modern sensibilities, but it is a clear example of sin being defined as a break from God’s intended design for human beings. Following desire over design leads to destruction.

God’s Right to Life

Teleology stands in sharp contrast to our culture’s commitment to autonomy. While we value our own right to do whatever we want with our own bodies, God requires that we submit ourselves to His will. Disobedience is disfunction, and it leads us to destruction. While Christians defend the “right to life,” we often fail to see that it is first and foremost God’s right, and it applies to each and every one of us. Our lives belong to God as our Creator and the one who gives us our purpose. We are accountable to Him. He has the right to give us life and the right to take it away. 

The Consequences of Sin

This brings us to the reality of death. As Scripture records in Genesis 3, when Adam and Eve disobeyed God by eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they brought damage to God’s perfect design. The thing about sin is that it takes root in the body of the sinner and skews its desires, making the sinner prone to keep on sinning. Once that first sin was introduced to the human race, it began a cycle of sin that was then passed on to the children of the first couple as they inherited the fallen flesh of their parents with its sinful appetites. The human body was misaligned with its perfect design, and would be incapable of restoring itself to its original condition. 

To be in unity with God is to be in perfect alignment with His will. We have each “fallen short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23), and have incurred the penalty of death as the “wages of sin” (Romans 6:23). As God warned Adam and Eve, “in the day you eat of it you shall surely die” (Genesis 2:17).

The Mercy of Death

Through sin, suffering and death were introduced into the world. The “curse” of death is often seen as punishment, but what is often overlooked is the mercy of God. We are told that God set angels at the Gates of Eden to block entry so they would not have access to the tree of life. The lesson here is that it is not God’s will for the human race to exist eternally in a sinful state. Death is required to free us from our fallen condition. But death is not God’s ultimate desire for us. His desire is that we live forever free of sin. We cannot do so in our present state. 

Looking Ahead / Catching Up

We love to do things our own way, and to make matters worse, there are powerful forces at work to lead us down that path. I will turn my attention to those next time as we discuss “The Spiritual War.”

1. The Creator God
2. Personhood & the Image of God

3. Sin & Death

4. The Spiritual War

5. Atonement Through Incarnation

6. Atonement Through Sacrifice

7. Resurrection

8. Grace Through Faith 

Making Sense of Christianity 2: Personhood and the Image of God

In the previous post, I made the case that there must be something that has always existed and continues to exist that is the cause of everything else that exists. This is what we mean by “God.” However, I haven’t shown that this God must be anything resembling the personal God of Christianity. Couldn’t it be an inanimate, eternally existing physical substance of some sort that blindly birthed all that has ever come to exist? I’d like to explain how this option won’t work, and that the eternal God must be personal. From there, I will show how this personal God aligns with Christianity and the concept of humans being created in the “image of God.”

Created by Choice

To be eternal is to be changeless, since change is a quality of sequential existence. For an eternal physical substance to suddenly birth the universe would require some change in its condition that precedes that moment. To illustrate this point, imagine a deflated basketball. Without the addition of air into the ball, it will remain deflated. Once it is added, the ball begins to change, and with enough air it will be able to bounce on a hard surface. Its own existence isn’t sufficient to inflate itself and bounce. It needs the addition of air and a hard surface to act on its potential, and it is powerless to do so on its own. So it is with all physical things. Nothing purely physical can go from inactivity to action by itself. So this option won’t work. 

The only other option is something that exists eternally without change in itself that has the capacity to create change. This capacity is what we might refer to as “will” or “intention.” In simpler terms, this boils down to the freedom to choose. Impersonal forces or substances do not have this ability. Only living beings that think can do so. Therefore, at the very least, for anything to exist at all, there must be a mind that willed other things into existence. God is that mind, and all that exists is the result of His choice to create. 

Personhood vs. Instinct

Now, the ability to choose is found in human beings as well as in the animal kingdom, yet we do not consider animals to be persons. So what does it mean to be a person? I would argue that a key distinction is to be found in how choices are made. As humans, we think introspectively and consider the options before us. As philosopher J.P Moreland describes, we have “thoughts about our thoughts.” This distinguishes us from animals that act on instinct and sets us apart from all other living things in the natural world. Animals act purely in response to their environments as their natures dictate. In this sense, their choices are made for them in a system of cause and effect. Humans, by contrast, have the ability to make different choices in the same circumstances. With this comes something significant that animals lack: moral responsibility. We do not think our pet cat is a criminal deserving of punishment if it kills a bird. We do think our neighbor should go to jail if he shoots our cat. This is because he has a choice in how he will respond to it. He could also choose to pet the cat or to simply ignore it. Therefore moral agency is an evident component of personhood. Human beings possess the ability to refrain from doing things that are recognized as morally wrong. We also can do things that are understood to be good. 

A Common Objection

Defining personhood in such a way will inevitably lead to the objection that infants, children in the womb, and those with severe mental disability do not qualify as persons. However, this assumes that personhood is something most people develop in time. It would logically follow then that there is one second when a human being is not a person followed by another where he/she is. Much like the basketball analogy, you have to ask: what is added in that moment to roll one over to personhood? Can non-persons make themselves persons? A better solution is to acknowledge that all human beings are persons from the moment they are conceived, but their capability to express their minds and make moral decisions is inhibited by a lack of experience in the world and/or physical development. The fact that most do shows that humans are born with the potential to express the attributes of personhood, and that is only possible if they are persons to begin with. As a result, personhood is not a matter of degrees. Every human being is equally a person who bear’s God’s image. To be able to ground human value in what God assigns it is a distinct advantage of the Christian worldview.

The Image of God

As the Scriptures teach us, God created man and woman “in the image of God.” Genesis 1:26-27 says, “Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.’ So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”
‭‭

Having already shown that God is not a physical entity, we can surmise that the image of God is spiritual in nature. Everything I’ve laid out about personhood meets this description. Therefore, we can conclude that God’s image at the very least includes personhood, which entails a rational mind coupled with moral agency. Another aspect is creativity, which is a way humans “image” the Creator. So we see reflecting back at us that bearing the image of God is linked to His own personhood. Therefore, God is not merely a rational mind, but is also a moral agent.

God as the Source

Another way to look at this is to see God as not merely the Creator of all things, but also as the source of all things. What this implies is that nothing can possess an ability that is greater than its source. Humans cannot possess any ability greater than God possesses in Himself. We can’t receive what can’t be given. Since this is true, the fact that human beings are personal requires that God is personal. We couldn’t have obtained personhood if God didn’t have it first to give us. 

Of course, the naturalist will disagree and argue that greater things continually emerge from lesser. From their vantage point, things like consciousness and personhood can and did emerge from physical things that lack them, and the universe (or multiverse) itself at some point was birthed from nothingness. It should be pointed out that if this is true, it is even more miraculous than the intentional act of a supernatural Creator. At least with an eternally existing God, there is always a source that is capable of producing whatever exists in our world. Naturalism logically requires that something (and consequently everything) came from literally nothing.

Why it Matters

The implications of a personal God cannot be overstated. Being personal, we know that He has chosen for this world, and all of us as individuals, to exist. When we consider that God is a rational, moral being, we can conclude that He is the source of rationality and morality. Therefore, all that exists is ordered to His laws of logic, and all persons are subject to His standards of right and wrong. And because God is consistently both rational and moral, we can conclude that His morality is itself rational. As personal beings, we long for connection with others. Therefore, we must have a God who desires connection with other persons. We know that the greatest of all virtues is love, therefore God must highly value love. Perhaps He loves. Perhaps He is love. As 1 John 4:8 says, “He who does not love does not know God, for God is love.” If He IS love, then love is in accordance with what is good, which is in accordance with what is rational, which is in accordance with the will of God. And if this is so, the perfect expression of our love is to be in submission to His will for our lives, and to encourage others to do the same. 

God in Relationship

As a final note, I’m not intending to present a philosophical defense of the Trinity in these posts. I believe that case is best made from the Scriptures, and would require more space than I can give here. What I will say is that we can reasonably conclude that if our personal God cares about His creation, He is likely to reach out to them to make His presence known to them. One way He can do this is through creation itself, but sometimes He might want to speak more clearly to those He made in His image. Scripture is the work of a God who loves the people He created and desires for them to be in relationship with Him. Christianity teaches that it is written by human beings moved under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Therefore our conclusion that God Himself exists as one being in a tri-personal relationship is one derived through the special revelation of Scripture, but it is consistent with the natural revelation of one personal God.

Looking Ahead / Catching Up

Having laid out a definition of what is good, next time we will turn our attention to what is not: sin & death.

1. The Creator God
2. Personhood & the Image of God

3. Sin & Death

4. The Spiritual War

5. Atonement Through Incarnation

6. Atonement Through Sacrifice

7. Resurrection

8. Grace Through Faith 

Making Sense of Christianity 1: The Creator God

“Why is there anything at all rather than nothing whatsoever?” This question, famously posed by 17th-18th century philosopher Gottfried Leibniz, is the most foundational of all questions. How we answer it will have radical implications for how we live our lives. With this series, I will be presenting a reasonable defense of orthodox Christian theology. Beginning here, I hope to articulate the Christian worldview in a way that is clear, cohesive, and compelling. 

Motivations for this Series 

Christian orthodoxy has been under considerable attack in recent years from both within and without the walls of Christian churches, and the faith of many has faltered. What I believe is presently lacking in our churches is a sensible explanation of why Christianity makes sense of the world. Too many people see it as a religious construction of random rules and beliefs that have been assembled through the ages for no good reason other than to keep people in line. The fact of the matter is that Christianity is built upon what is real and good and true. It is the systems of the world that are built on falsehoods and that keep people in bondage. My hope is that this series will provide a sharp contrast between the philosophies of the world and that of orthodox Christianity. Unlike those false worldviews, Christianity is internally consistent, and makes complete sense of our very existence. I have structured this series to show a logical progression from the most basic idea to the full implications of Jesus Christ for every one of us. As C.S. Lewis said, “Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important.” And so I begin with the Creator God.

Necessary vs. Contingent

There are many ideas about what a “god” is, but Christianity begins by giving the answer to Leibniz’ question above. God is the reason why there is something rather than nothing. He is the Creator. Everything else is the creation. In philosophy, there is a distinction made between that which is “necessary” and that which is “contingent.” All things, with the exception of God, exist contingently, which is to say that their existence is dependent on something or someone else bringing it into existence. It is possible for any contingent thing to not exist. All physical objects are formed from physical materials. All living things are brought into existence through other living things. Every effect is the result of at least one cause. All of this results in a chain of causes that extends backwards in one of two ways: either 1) infinitely, or 2) to a first cause that is not itself an effect. If option 1 is true, then there is an infinite number of past events in the history of the universe (or multiverse, if it were to exist). However, if this is true, it is impossible (even theoretically) to sequentially lay out its history. There cannot be a first event in the sequence, therefore there cannot be a second, nor a third, nor a 4,000th, nor a 7 billionth,... and so on. Whatever the present is, it has to fit somewhere in the sequence, but you could not actually place it anywhere. To do so would require a first event that you can then proceed from to get to the present. This leaves us with option #2.

Christianity (as well as Judaism and Islam) teaches that God “spoke” the universe into existence. Psalm 33:6 says, “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, And all the host of them by the breath of His mouth.” Likewise, Hebrews 11:3 tells us, “By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.” This means that God’s existence is prior to the existence of everything else. God Himself exists necessarily, which is to say that nothing came before God. There has never been a “time” that He didn’t exist. Christian orthodoxy teaches that God transcends time, which itself came into existence through God. Therefore, it can be said that God “is.” His existence is a constant. It is impossible for Him to come into existence or to stop existing. He simply exists. And there can be no other “god” before Him or that would be “God.” So if God exists, He must be the first and only God. He must be (capital G) God. And since it is impossible for anything to exist apart from Him, God must exist.

Why it Matters

The implications of a necessary God are simply stated: God is God, and I am not! As obvious as this may be, we all struggle either consciously or unconsciously to accept this. But if we do, what we believe about Him will inevitably shape how we live our lives. I will lay this out in more detail as we go further in this series.

Looking Ahead

Next time I will explain why the Creator God must be personal, and how our own personhood is connected to His. By the end of this series, my goal is to have brought some clarity to all of these topics:

1. The Creator God
2. Personhood & the Image of God

3. Sin & Death

4. The Spiritual War

5. Atonement Through Incarnation

6. Atonement Through Sacrifice

7. Resurrection

8. Grace Through Faith 

Why the Ontological Argument Fails

"If it seems too good to be true, it probably is." This saying comes to mind as I consider the Ontological Argument for God's existence. When I began to delve deeply into Christian apologetics some years back, I was immediately fascinated by its mindbending logic. It's just so much fun to think about! Here we have what may be about as close to a philosophical "proof" for God's existence as we can get. If the argument is sound, God is certainly real! Too good to be true? I think so, and I'd like to explain why.

As a firm believer in the Christian God, and one who finds the other popular theistic arguments to be solid, I believe our case is much stronger without the Ontological Argument. If its logic isn't sound, and the sneaking suspicion that there is something not quite right is justified, it can weaken our credibility in defending those arguments and evidences we present that are valid. As we point skeptics to the truth, we need to shed everything that is false, including those parts of our case that may lend support to it, if only they were true. So while I may be attacking a part of our cumulative case, I believe the whole would be much stronger without it.

So for those unfamiliar with the Ontological Argument, what is it? The word "ontology" is briefly defined as "the study of being." So when we speak of ontology in relation to God, it refers to what it means to be God; the qualities God possesses that makes Him God. The OA attempts to show that by God's very nature, He necessarily exists. In short, the argument states that if it is POSSIBLE that God exists, then He MUST exist. Originally developed and popularized by the 11th century theologian, Anselm of Canterbury, the argument has been controversial among both skeptics and believers throughout the centuries. Anselm's version is framed around the concept of the "greatest conceivable thing." If that thing is able to be conceived in the mind of an individual, then its greatness must be actual, because something that exists in the mind alone is not as great as something that also exists in reality. His original argument has been revised and improved for clarity throughout the centuries, most recently taking the form constructed by Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga, and reworded by William Lane Craig. This "modal" version defines God as a "maximally great being." Since this is the version most commonly used in contemporary apologetics, I will present it below and point out where I find it to be flawed.

The Modal Ontological Argument

Premise 1: It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
Premise 2: If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
Premise 3: If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
Premise 4: If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
Premise 5: If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
Conclusion: Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

(Here's a great animation video to further explain it.)

Most skeptics attack premise 1, comparing the idea of a maximally great being to such things as a maximally great pizza. How would you define such a thing? Isn't maximal greatness a matter of personal opinion, just like what would be the perfect pizza? How many slices of pepperoni? Would you add pineapple? As someone who affirms the Christian understanding of God's maximally great qualities (omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, and omnibenevolence), I will defend the idea of a maximally great being (MGB), and why it is different than the pizza.

The skeptic relies on subjectivity (personal viewpoint) in determining what God is, yet it is their own subjectiveness that rules out the possibility of God's existence. By saying that the MGB is impossible, they carry the burden of proof in showing that such a concept is impossible. However, maximal greatness is not in itself a matter of OUR determination. Sure, we may all define it differently, but that doesn't mean there isn't an objective standard of greatness that exists. We are in no position to conclude that our own disagreements about what it means to be maximally great rules out the possibility of maximal greatness. Add to this the fact that many fellow human beings think it IS possible for God to be maximally great. So the skeptic who says it ISN'T possible must be absolutely certain that his own conclusion is correct, and those who disagree are wrong. The burden of proof lies with the skeptic to show that he is an infallible determiner of what is true. If he is wrong about anything, then that means that he can be wrong about his conclusion that maximal greatness is impossible. Therefore if it is possible that he is wrong, it remains possible that a maximally great being exists, and the skeptical objection to premise 1 fails.

Premise 2 simply states that if God might exist, then there is a "possible world" where He will exist. This is the obvious conclusion of premise 1. If He exists, then there exists a world He exists in. Likewise, if He doesn't exist, there exists a world where He is absent. So far so good.

This leads us to premise 3, and this is where things get really interesting. The premises that follow are obvious, as well as the conclusion. It all hangs on this. "If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world." The underlying assumption here is that maximal greatness implies the necessity of existence. If God is maximally great, He MUST exist in every possible world. But is this really true? I don't think so, and this is why I believe the Ontological Argument fails.

To understand why, let's go back to premise 1. "It is possible that a maximally great being exists." Yes, we decided that it is possible. However, when considering the possibility, we are also considering alternate possibilities. As Christians, we must also consider the possibility that the God of Islam exists, or the pantheistic God of Hinduism exists, or the created God of Mormonism exists, and so on and so on. We must also consider the possibility that no God exists, or that there is a "world" of complete nonexistence. These all exist in the realm of "possible worlds." Unless these ideas are shown to be logically impossible, they must be admitted into the potentially infinite set of possible worlds that might exist.

So when we jump from the MGB existing in one possible world to Him necessarily existing in every possible world, we end up with some absurd situations. For example, we end up with the MGB existing in a world where Allah also exists. If Allah exists as well as the Christian God, doesn't that compromise what it means for God to be God? Doesn't maximal greatness entail the fact that God is God over all things, and there is no other? Yet Allah is also understood to be the one and only God over all things. So we have a contradiction. This becomes even more apparent when we consider the possible world where no God exists. Must the Christian God exist in an atheistic world? This is absurdity! So when the third premise is applied to the original set of possible worlds implied in premise one, we can see that there must be something off here. Just how do we put our finger on it?

I would suggest that the key error is the underlying assumption that if God's existence is necessary in this world (and I believe this to be the case), then His existence is necessary in all those possible worlds we can imagine in our minds. Those imaginary worlds may not really be "possible," but we cannot show them to be logically incoherent and therefore impossible without begging the question in claiming that the MGB is necessary for any world to exist.

So what do we mean when we say that God's existence is necessary? I don't see how we can understand what is necessary without appealing to what is contingent. We say there must be a cause when we see an effect. Without the effect, we cannot infer the cause. When we look at this world we live in, we see evidence that points us back to a cause. We use the Kalam Cosmological Argument to understand that this cause is spaceless, timeless, and immaterial. We use the Teleological (Fine-tuning) Argument to understand that this cause is a mind. We use the Moral Argument to conclude that this cause is personal and is morally good. These arguments point to the Christian God's necessity in the world we live in, for it cannot account for the qualities it possesses on its own. But what if the world didn't possess these qualities? What if, for example, the world was morally neutral, and we didn't have a concept of right and wrong? Could we conclude that there was an omnibenevolent God? What if the world was uninhabitable and chaotic? Could we conclude that He is a mind, and therefore omniscient? We could then have a god who is omnipotent, but not omniscient or personal. This is not the MGB. So it seems that we understand the necessity of the MGB's existence by the world we live in, and cannot make a rational case for Him apart from it.

Where the Ontological Argument ultimately fails is in assuming that God must necessarily exist in worlds that don't. There is no reason to assume this, other than a faulty understanding of necessary existence. This still leaves us with a potentially infinite number of worlds in which the Christian God could exist, but all of these are a subset of worlds taken from the greater ensemble of worlds that don't exist, but are logically possible. These are the possible worlds which the MGB could have created, had He so desired. As someone who affirms that God knows everything, including all possible worlds He could have made, I don't believe that this actual world must be as it is, but exists as it is because God decided to create it this way. However, whatever world He could have created would have also been consistent in reflecting who He is. Just as a story is reflective of its author, so too our world is a reflection of its Creator.

We can conclude that the Christian God is that Creator, but I don't believe we can do so through the Ontological Argument. It is a thoroughly fascinating idea, but I'm afraid it doesn't succeed in its objective. I'm open to being wrong about this, but I'd ask that the Christian apologist also be open to the possibility that this just doesn't work. We have plenty of good material to make our case. We don't need the Ontological Argument, and we will be more effective without it.